On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 15:33, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]>wrote:
> Have a look at: > http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/ipr/blog/tpm-copyright-amendment > > The worst part about the law is that it makes unlawful circumvention a > *criminal* act (as opposed to a civil wrong). > That is a different issue, and worthy of much discussion. I agree, with Raj Mathur, that copyright should not be a criminal offence, but that is a rather larger principle. > Further (from the above-linked blog post) > * TPM-placers have been given the ability to restrict the activities of > consumers, but they have not been given any corresponding duties. I see no reason why they should be given "corresponding" duties. Sure, give them duties, if the duties are desirable. Give them rights, if the rights are desirable. But why link the two? Crudely, the grant of a Right to Information Act did not have a corresponding duty placed on requesters to ask only meaningful questions. A Right with Duties is not a "Right", it is a contract. > Thus, > copyright holders do not have to do anything to ensure that the Film & > Telivision Institute of India professor who wishes to use a video clip > from a Blu-Ray disc can actually do so. True. Why should the "FTII prof" have a right? What about the "non-FTII prof"? What about the "non-FTII-non-prof"? You are using an emotional argument, I claim. Next you will trot out an old lady who is a widow! > Or that the blind student You did! :-) > who > wishes to circumvent TPMs because she has no other way of making it work > with her screen reader is actually enabled to take advantage of the > leeway the law seeks to provide her through s.52(1)(a) (s.52(1)(zb) is > another matter!). I agree that she cannot read Adobe DRM, without assistive technologies. But why burden the publisher? Where do we stop? I cannot read french, should french publishers have a "corresponding duty" to read out DRM books to me in english? > > There is no question of s.65A(2) freeing up deCSS, since it has thus far > not been unlawful. > I would rather say, it has not been tested in an Indian court (please correct me if there is case law in India). -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
